Indian Cricket
To DRS Or Not To DRS?
By Gaurang
November 21 2012
The stated purpose of the DRS system is to prevent patently incorrect decisions, i.e. "howlers" from marring the game. In this aspect DRS can be remarkably successful, with one caveat. If there are no appeals left for the team trying to overturn a howler the system does not work. This is the crux of the issue. And where a simple change in the rules can make the DRS system much more acceptable to teams around the world.
The BCCI and some Indian cricketers have been skeptics of the technology used in the DRS system, with the level of error in technology like Hotspot, Hawkeye, and Snicko. Their contention that these systems are run by independent third parties, not under the control of the ICC or any other cricketing authority, but could materially influence games, is a valid one, and needs to be addressed.
The unspoken skepticism of the Indian players, if not the BCCI, is that the system can be used by umpires who have a bias, to either intentionally or unintentionally game the system, so that while giving the appearance of fairness it actually institutionalizes bias.
Let me explain by giving a hypothetical example. Let's say umpire "X" has an inherent bias against Pakistan. In a match between India and Pakistan, he routinely gives decisions in favor of India. The obvious solution from the Pakistan perspective would be to appeal these decisions to DRS. Problem solved.
Not quite. Let me elaborate. As the system exists currently each team gets to make 2 unsuccessful appeals, and after that they lose their right to appeal a decision. If the umpire "X" were giving only clearly wrong decisions in favor of India the problem would indeed be solved, as his wrong decisions would be overturned. However consider what happens when he also gives marginal decisions, often called "umpire's call" decisions in favor of India. If Pakistan were to appeal such decisions they would use up their 2 unsucessful appeals quickly and after that the umpire could make decision after decision in favor of India whether they were close ones or howlers with no compunctions or ability to be reversed. See the dilema from the Pakistani perspective?
The simple solution to this dilema would be to not count unsuccessful appeals that are for "umpire's calls" against the limit of 2 unsuccessful appeals per innings that the current rules allow. This balances the need to prevent teams from appealing everything to DRS, with the problem of umpire bias in close cases, whether intentional or unintentional.
The further benefit of this system, would be that it would highlight any bias that an umpire may have, as the team being hurt by the bias, can continue appealing (though they would lose the appeals) for decision after decsion. I would bet the umpire in question would "self-correct" very quickly.
If the ultimate goal of the DRS system is to prevent howlers and not encourage or institutionalize intentional or unintentional bias, this one simple rule change could go a long way in doing so. Of course, the underlying issue of the reliability of the technology would still remain but the ICC could insist that the owners of Hawkeye, Hotspot, Snicko, etc. either share the technology with the ICC or at the very least allow an ICC official access to their technology and experts during a game. As for the cost of the system, series that are not money spinners like the current Sri Lanka v. New Zealand and Bangladesh v. West Indies series, could be covered by the ICC. In fact in the interest of fairness, maybe equipment for all series should be covered by the ICC. Afterall fair is fair.
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponTo DRS Or Not To DRS?
Discussion started by Indian Cricket Fever (IP Logged), 21/11/2012 18:02
21/11/2012 18:02
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:12:04:20:27:01 by Birbal.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:12:04:20:27:01 by Birbal.
Tony Hill gives a HOWLER...and Sri Lanka out of reviews...
If the solution I have suggested in this article Sri Lanka would still have its reviews...
Siddle to Herath, OUT, oh dear, the Herath show is over much too soon, and we didn't even get to see one of his classic strokes, and it ends with an absolute shocker of a decision from Tony Hill, massive inside-edge as Herath looked to defend that one, umpire missed that, and there are no reviews left, Siddle gets another
If the solution I have suggested in this article Sri Lanka would still have its reviews...
Siddle to Herath, OUT, oh dear, the Herath show is over much too soon, and we didn't even get to see one of his classic strokes, and it ends with an absolute shocker of a decision from Tony Hill, massive inside-edge as Herath looked to defend that one, umpire missed that, and there are no reviews left, Siddle gets another
As soon as I saw the picture, I got nightmares:
"DRS Pleeeeaaaasssse !!!!"
"DRS Pleeeeaaaasssse !!!!"
I am watching the Aus v. Sri Lanka series...and the commentators are so FACKING HILARIOUS when the talk about DRS...
If the DRS decision goes against an Aussie bowler they say it is generally helpful to batsmen...and if Bradman had DRS his average would be over 100...
Next day, if the DRS decision goes against an Aussie batsman they say... it has been a great boon to spinners...as these stretching forward type lbws never used to be given...
What they are actually saying is that DRS is now showing that the BIASED umpiring of the past that would have given Sangakarra out twice before he was actually out... is making it hard and perplexing to actually have to work for wins instead of the usual HELP they got from friendly umps...
If the DRS decision goes against an Aussie bowler they say it is generally helpful to batsmen...and if Bradman had DRS his average would be over 100...
Next day, if the DRS decision goes against an Aussie batsman they say... it has been a great boon to spinners...as these stretching forward type lbws never used to be given...
What they are actually saying is that DRS is now showing that the BIASED umpiring of the past that would have given Sangakarra out twice before he was actually out... is making it hard and perplexing to actually have to work for wins instead of the usual HELP they got from friendly umps...
Here is what whinny moaner Mark Nicholas has to say about DRS...
"The DRS was introduced to rid the game of really bad decisions - "howlers" as the cliché goes. Sportsmen are notorious for seizing the main chance, and cricketers are doing so - at least most of them are - in an attempt to mitigate their own error, not that of the umpire. It is a default position for the good player and an offer of hope for the mediocre. Kumar Sangakkara turned to it three times. He had to. It is an obligation to the team and the nation. If the best batsmen can have two or three lives, they must. This is common sense. Imagine Sir Donald Bradman's average with the DRS. Twice it went with Sangakkara, the third time it did not. Others, less worthy, pay the price. The system stutters because of it."
Good words Mark...but not a word about umpiring... or how if Sangakkara had NOT used DRS he would have been sent packng by the so called "Neutral" umps... and btw, if the decisions were close Why the FACK was not the "benefit of the doubt" given to the batsman? Was it because he was dark skinned and preventing a light skinned team from winnin a Test which they should have by "right" won easily?
The solution is simple... as I have pointed out in my article... just needs someone to implement it...
Of course it would help if the so called "Netural" and so called "Elite" umps would be unbiased and not quite so error prone...
"The DRS was introduced to rid the game of really bad decisions - "howlers" as the cliché goes. Sportsmen are notorious for seizing the main chance, and cricketers are doing so - at least most of them are - in an attempt to mitigate their own error, not that of the umpire. It is a default position for the good player and an offer of hope for the mediocre. Kumar Sangakkara turned to it three times. He had to. It is an obligation to the team and the nation. If the best batsmen can have two or three lives, they must. This is common sense. Imagine Sir Donald Bradman's average with the DRS. Twice it went with Sangakkara, the third time it did not. Others, less worthy, pay the price. The system stutters because of it."
Good words Mark...but not a word about umpiring... or how if Sangakkara had NOT used DRS he would have been sent packng by the so called "Neutral" umps... and btw, if the decisions were close Why the FACK was not the "benefit of the doubt" given to the batsman? Was it because he was dark skinned and preventing a light skinned team from winnin a Test which they should have by "right" won easily?
The solution is simple... as I have pointed out in my article... just needs someone to implement it...
Of course it would help if the so called "Netural" and so called "Elite" umps would be unbiased and not quite so error prone...
The concept of neutral umpires is a myth. All the English umpires are on the side of Aus when they play any non-white nations. The umpiring decisions going against SL in test 1 were disgusting. And Chris Broad that complete @#$%& bag who always has a hate driven agenda against Asian teams - he was even more @#$%& bag than his usual trashy-self. He even defended Siddle from ball tampering allegations (as if it was his job to defend the accused!). What a bunch of crooks, these Anglos. Great at pretending to be saints, but deep down, as trash as you can get.
Well, I am not so sure about the umpires being conciously biased... except for a few... but there was a study done...and people were asked to give favorable and unfavorable reactions to photos they saw...
That whites... gave unfavorable ratings to blacks and browns and higher rating to whites was somewhat understandable... but when they gave the test to browns and blacks... SURPRISE they too gave more favorable ratings to whites...and poorer ratings to blacks and browns...
That is the problem...
If this is genuinely a problem and India is the epicenter of world cricket power...shouldn't it be solved?
My solution does not require any change in "attitudes"...just more even handedness in applying the DRS system
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:12:22:18:34:42 by Birbal.
That whites... gave unfavorable ratings to blacks and browns and higher rating to whites was somewhat understandable... but when they gave the test to browns and blacks... SURPRISE they too gave more favorable ratings to whites...and poorer ratings to blacks and browns...
That is the problem...
If this is genuinely a problem and India is the epicenter of world cricket power...shouldn't it be solved?
My solution does not require any change in "attitudes"...just more even handedness in applying the DRS system
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:12:22:18:34:42 by Birbal.
We don't have to contend with DRS in India series but saw it's usage closely in CT and now Ashes and I think:
1) Just like umpires are trained in their normal umpiring craft...there should be proper training for them in using DRS....taking them throuhg long sessions in explaining how the technology wroks and how to use the various options in tandem.
I get the impression that many of them are neither technology nor computer savvy.
2) Then the rules for DRS implementtaion themselves are work in progress.....ICC is trying to formulate rules on the fly as they go along.
so the same ball hitting part of the stump is sometimes out and sometimes not out.....
after 2 calls a howler cannot be reversed....and so on
all that's inconsistent to me.
3) And then there are those setting and operating the equipment of DRS...neitehr the boards nor ICC but 3rd party broadcaster.
sometimes they do not set the equipment right otehr times they do not operate it accurately and appropriately.
4) Finally onfield umpires have turned mentally a bit switched off or call it lazy....they believe there is a secodn line DRS that will fix their less than perfect decisions...hence they dont have to aspire for perfection....almost like when we know there is a spell check....we type approximate spellings in a word document.
earlier bad decisions......and an umpire would be roasted by the fans and hauled over the coals by the media.
now.....every umpiring blunder puts the focus on the debate between pro-DRS(look we told you we need technology ) and anti-DRS lobby ( look DRS sukks)
and the umpire gets away.......3 horribly inept umpires from this game are getting awaay with far less criticism then they deserve.
In conclusion Human error of onfield umpire has been replaced by :
Human onfield umpire error + equipment operators error+ 3rd umpire's errors
multiplying 3 fold and adding to the adage...cricket a game of glorious uncertainities.
1) Just like umpires are trained in their normal umpiring craft...there should be proper training for them in using DRS....taking them throuhg long sessions in explaining how the technology wroks and how to use the various options in tandem.
I get the impression that many of them are neither technology nor computer savvy.
2) Then the rules for DRS implementtaion themselves are work in progress.....ICC is trying to formulate rules on the fly as they go along.
so the same ball hitting part of the stump is sometimes out and sometimes not out.....
after 2 calls a howler cannot be reversed....and so on
all that's inconsistent to me.
3) And then there are those setting and operating the equipment of DRS...neitehr the boards nor ICC but 3rd party broadcaster.
sometimes they do not set the equipment right otehr times they do not operate it accurately and appropriately.
4) Finally onfield umpires have turned mentally a bit switched off or call it lazy....they believe there is a secodn line DRS that will fix their less than perfect decisions...hence they dont have to aspire for perfection....almost like when we know there is a spell check....we type approximate spellings in a word document.
earlier bad decisions......and an umpire would be roasted by the fans and hauled over the coals by the media.
now.....every umpiring blunder puts the focus on the debate between pro-DRS(look we told you we need technology ) and anti-DRS lobby ( look DRS sukks)
and the umpire gets away.......3 horribly inept umpires from this game are getting awaay with far less criticism then they deserve.
In conclusion Human error of onfield umpire has been replaced by :
Human onfield umpire error + equipment operators error+ 3rd umpire's errors
multiplying 3 fold and adding to the adage...cricket a game of glorious uncertainities.
Wow shilpa you are on fire!... yet another post that could be turned into an article...
Guess you don't want to do the nitty-gritty work of actually writing one though...eh?
Do you mind if I use your thoughts to write one for the site...you will be attributed of course... What name do you prefer to be attributed under?
Guess you don't want to do the nitty-gritty work of actually writing one though...eh?
Do you mind if I use your thoughts to write one for the site...you will be attributed of course... What name do you prefer to be attributed under?
Quote:Birbal
Wow shilpa you are on fire!... yet another post that could be turned into an article...
Guess you don't want to do the nitty-gritty work of actually writing one though...eh?
Do you mind if I use your thoughts to write one for the site...you will be attributed of course... What name do you prefer to be attributed under?
thanks that you find worthy of publishing as article......
ofcourse it's a privelge for either ashes or this or both to be published.
under the name of Shilpa......what else
Feel free to edit as necessary
Warne, Chappell, Boycot, Haddin, Gilchrist and a number of otehr current and explayers are grumbling over DRS.
SA were complaining and then Kiwis and now aussies
The tour of England is when the onfieled and 3rd umpires turn blatantly against the touring team and give all borderline cases in favor of the home team to the extent, that it simply turns nations off DRS.
It's this cheating that england does using DRS is what will kill it.
do you know Wisden bought DRS
and wisden was bough over by CI
and we suspect ECB funds CI.....
it's all hand in glove
SA were complaining and then Kiwis and now aussies
The tour of England is when the onfieled and 3rd umpires turn blatantly against the touring team and give all borderline cases in favor of the home team to the extent, that it simply turns nations off DRS.
It's this cheating that england does using DRS is what will kill it.
do you know Wisden bought DRS
and wisden was bough over by CI
and we suspect ECB funds CI.....
it's all hand in glove
Quote:gilchrist
For the first time, I'm starting to understand India's reluctance to go with the system. It's not a remedy that seems to have cured the problem. In fact, it may even have become more of a problem.
The DRS is not the solution, it's part of the problemNot only does the review system rob the game of spontaneity and drama, it does not get rid of the mistakes it was created to eradicate
Umm Shilpa your comment makes no sense. There were only two decisions in which DRS actually allowed subjective intervention and that was in the Trott LBW and the Agar stumping. Both inconclusive based on the evidence on the tv and both went against England.
Not sure what conspiracy you can find in Australia using up their appeals so that the only howler in the game was not picked up?
England won 3 DRS appeals - 2 which the batsmen knicked and did not walk and have admitted to knicking it and one LBW which pitched in line and was hitting the middle of middle. If there was some form of conspiracy I am not sure where to find it.
Not sure what conspiracy you can find in Australia using up their appeals so that the only howler in the game was not picked up?
England won 3 DRS appeals - 2 which the batsmen knicked and did not walk and have admitted to knicking it and one LBW which pitched in line and was hitting the middle of middle. If there was some form of conspiracy I am not sure where to find it.
Quote:choor
Umm Shilpa your comment makes no sense. There were only two decisions in which DRS actually allowed subjective intervention and that was in the Trott LBW and the Agar stumping. Both inconclusive based on the evidence on the tv and both went against England.
Not sure what conspiracy you can find in Australia using up their appeals so that the only howler in the game was not picked up?
England won 3 DRS appeals - 2 which the batsmen knicked and did not walk and have admitted to knicking it and one LBW which pitched in line and was hitting the middle of middle. If there was some form of conspiracy I am not sure where to find it.
who mentioned a conspiracy ?
what are you reading ?
Quote:choor
umm your conspiracy about who owns DRS.....
How England is cheating.
who owns Hawkeye is on the web.
how eng is cheating?......it's not a conspirancy but an open fact.
and look at the pressure ICC is under.......defnding DRS, umpires, making changes....sending apologies
See the inconsistency in DRS implementation..
Sammy to Misbah-ul-Haq, 1 leg bye, Appeal for a lbw and he's been given not out and Sammy wants that reviewed, lands it outside off and nips back in, Misbah shuffled across the crease and tried to flick it to the on side, he was struck below the knee roll, looked like hitting leg stump, no contact with bat or glove, Hawkeye shows that only hitting the top of leg stump, not convincing enough so Reiffel's original decision stays.. If on-field umpire had given this out it would have not been overturned as well considering it was clipping the leg stump..
In 2nd test's first innings Phil Hughes was given caught behind but hot-spot was inconclusive whether he hit it or not.. but since there was not enough evidence to overrule onfield umpire 3rd umpire gave it out. In Trott's case the replays were inconclusive as well but the on-field umpire's decision was overturned..
Sammy to Misbah-ul-Haq, 1 leg bye, Appeal for a lbw and he's been given not out and Sammy wants that reviewed, lands it outside off and nips back in, Misbah shuffled across the crease and tried to flick it to the on side, he was struck below the knee roll, looked like hitting leg stump, no contact with bat or glove, Hawkeye shows that only hitting the top of leg stump, not convincing enough so Reiffel's original decision stays.. If on-field umpire had given this out it would have not been overturned as well considering it was clipping the leg stump..
In 2nd test's first innings Phil Hughes was given caught behind but hot-spot was inconclusive whether he hit it or not.. but since there was not enough evidence to overrule onfield umpire 3rd umpire gave it out. In Trott's case the replays were inconclusive as well but the on-field umpire's decision was overturned..
Yeah this has been known for a LONG TIME...that is why I keep saying that 50/50 ump calls decisions when reviewed should not count against the side LOSING the review...
If the DAMN ump is not sure..how can the players be?... and they should have a right to question him... especially if he shows a proclivity for BIAS...
If the DAMN ump is not sure..how can the players be?... and they should have a right to question him... especially if he shows a proclivity for BIAS...
also consider if the onfield umpires give all marginal decision in favour of England....
such as ball hitting Aus batsman's edge opf leg stump.....given LBW then Aus lose their review
...umpire give not outLBW when tjhe ball is hitting.... an english batsman's edge of leg stump hittin...aus also lose their review.
so if the umpires are biassed in favour of time they can nullify the DRS choices of the otehr team
such as ball hitting Aus batsman's edge opf leg stump.....given LBW then Aus lose their review
...umpire give not outLBW when tjhe ball is hitting.... an english batsman's edge of leg stump hittin...aus also lose their review.
so if the umpires are biassed in favour of time they can nullify the DRS choices of the otehr team
Glad to see my point is finally dawning of folks...
I have been SHOUTING myself hoarse saying the same exact thing... for years now...
I have been SHOUTING myself hoarse saying the same exact thing... for years now...
Best to Misbah-ul-Haq, no run, this is getting reviewed for a strangle down the leg side. Not given out on the field. Short of a length, into the ribs, Misbah plays at it, looking to tuck it away into the leg side. The ball as it passes Misbah is awfully close to the glove. And there is a deviation. So if it has hit anything, it is the glove. The same Bravo argument in the morning should stand here. Remember we don't have HotSpot. In this case, the umpires feel there is enough doubt to not overturn the on-field call. Best and Bravo and Sammy are gutted. Best asks questions of Umpire Reiffel. Bravo stands stunned
Junaid Khan to DM Bravo, OUT, appeal for catch at the wicket, not given and they have immediately reviewed it. And it's not just Junaid and Akmal, even Hafeez wants the review. Short of a length, angling in, Bravo is not behind the line as he defends. There is a clear sound as the ball passes the outside edge, but there is no obvious deviation. Bravo, a walker from whatever cricket I have seen him play, is not pleased with this. Seriously we don't have enough technology here to operate proper DRS. He has given him out based on sound alone. Bravo is left to shake his head
Junaid Khan to DM Bravo, OUT, appeal for catch at the wicket, not given and they have immediately reviewed it. And it's not just Junaid and Akmal, even Hafeez wants the review. Short of a length, angling in, Bravo is not behind the line as he defends. There is a clear sound as the ball passes the outside edge, but there is no obvious deviation. Bravo, a walker from whatever cricket I have seen him play, is not pleased with this. Seriously we don't have enough technology here to operate proper DRS. He has given him out based on sound alone. Bravo is left to shake his head
Yeah the inconsitency with DRS and third umpire decisions is too much... the DRS should only be used for HOWLERS... otherwise let the onfield ump decision stand. I agree with the Misbah ruling and can't understand the Bravo ruling...
IMPLEMENT DRS... but don't count losing 50/50 or "umpire's call" appeals against the limit of 2 appeals... THAT's IT... PROBLEM SOLVED...
Such a simple solution...one that a reasonably intelligent person could have seen YEARS ago... like yours truly did...but still not implemented.
They did a minor modification or the DRS rules in that direction by allowing the two appeals limit to be RE-SET after every 80 overs... but that is just not enough when you have guys like Bucknor (thank God he is retired) out there with their clear BIAS against certain teams...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:11:04:19:09:35 by Birbal.
Such a simple solution...one that a reasonably intelligent person could have seen YEARS ago... like yours truly did...but still not implemented.
They did a minor modification or the DRS rules in that direction by allowing the two appeals limit to be RE-SET after every 80 overs... but that is just not enough when you have guys like Bucknor (thank God he is retired) out there with their clear BIAS against certain teams...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:11:04:19:09:35 by Birbal.
bump in light of the DRS discussions again being raised...
ONce again the ICC is about 10 years behind the times... We have discussed Test Championship...here..now they are thinking about it..
We have discussed solutions to DRS here...now they are finally making head way...
As the great Simon and Garfunkel song said "...the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls (or internet blogs), tenement halls....and whispered in the sounds of silence"
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016:10:24:21:37:37 by Birbal.
ONce again the ICC is about 10 years behind the times... We have discussed Test Championship...here..now they are thinking about it..
We have discussed solutions to DRS here...now they are finally making head way...
As the great Simon and Garfunkel song said "...the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls (or internet blogs), tenement halls....and whispered in the sounds of silence"
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016:10:24:21:37:37 by Birbal.
DRS was introduced at the insistence of the BCCI to prevent "racist" umpires incorrectly giving India's invincible batsmen out. The first series it was used in, and possibly the only time India have used in tests, was a tour of Sri Lanka by India. Unsurprisingly, India wasted their reviews straight away, as no Indian batsmen ever believes he's out and every time an Indian bowler hits a batsman pad he thinks it's LBW. Sri Lanka was more sensible with their reviews and the system disadvantaged India.
Following this the BCCI began a campaign of intimidating umpires and forcing them out of their professional career if they enforced the rules of the game and umpires in Indian games stopped doing their job. Will be interesting to see how much the third umpire "dicks about" with ball tracking if/ when India adopts DRS.
From pitch doctoring, intimidated umpires, ball tampering and match fixing, Indians are proven cheats. Am sure they'll find a to bribe/ threaten with redundancy the video umpire and get favourable calls
P.S. and seriously Birbal, Simon and Garfunkel
Lock up your backdoor, hard rocking Birbal is in town
P.P.S. I forgot, Birbal is a classic Indian, you wont get my previous statement. The previous statement may, or may not, contain some sarcasm. You know (or actually you don't) sarcasm... an abstract mental concept independent of absolute value
Apple: Ignoring Shilpa since 27/3/2012 and Birbal (temporarily replying to him since there's no one else here 26/10/2015) since 16/8/2012
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:10:25:06:55:04 by apple.
Following this the BCCI began a campaign of intimidating umpires and forcing them out of their professional career if they enforced the rules of the game and umpires in Indian games stopped doing their job. Will be interesting to see how much the third umpire "dicks about" with ball tracking if/ when India adopts DRS.
From pitch doctoring, intimidated umpires, ball tampering and match fixing, Indians are proven cheats. Am sure they'll find a to bribe/ threaten with redundancy the video umpire and get favourable calls
P.S. and seriously Birbal, Simon and Garfunkel
Lock up your backdoor, hard rocking Birbal is in town
P.P.S. I forgot, Birbal is a classic Indian, you wont get my previous statement. The previous statement may, or may not, contain some sarcasm. You know (or actually you don't) sarcasm... an abstract mental concept independent of absolute value
Apple: Ignoring Shilpa since 27/3/2012 and Birbal (temporarily replying to him since there's no one else here 26/10/2015) since 16/8/2012
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:10:25:06:55:04 by apple.
Your biased, one-eyed and occasionally racist Aussie rantings are graciously tolerated here because we are actually open-minded ...so be thankful... and carry on barking!
We quite enjoy your whines and yelps of frustrated anger...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:10:25:21:22:39 by Birbal.
We quite enjoy your whines and yelps of frustrated anger...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016:10:25:21:22:39 by Birbal.
Wrote this nearly 5 years ago...
The simple solution to this dilema would be to not count unsuccessful appeals that are for "umpire's calls" against the limit of 2 unsuccessful appeals per innings that the current rules allow. This balances the need to prevent teams from appealing everything to DRS, with the problem of umpire
bias in close cases, whether intentional or unintentional.
The ICC finally gets it and makes the change I suggested... better late than never...
The simple solution to this dilema would be to not count unsuccessful appeals that are for "umpire's calls" against the limit of 2 unsuccessful appeals per innings that the current rules allow. This balances the need to prevent teams from appealing everything to DRS, with the problem of umpire
bias in close cases, whether intentional or unintentional.
The ICC finally gets it and makes the change I suggested... better late than never...
Quote:Birbal
Wrote this nearly 5 years ago...
The simple solution to this dilema would be to not count unsuccessful appeals that are for "umpire's calls" against the limit of 2 unsuccessful appeals per innings that the current rules allow. This balances the need to prevent teams from appealing everything to DRS, with the problem of umpire
bias in close cases, whether intentional or unintentional.
The ICC finally gets it and makes the change I suggested... better late than never...
This is done? Since when it is being applied?
See here....[www.espncricinfo.com]
However sensibly the teams will no longer get fresh reviews after 80 overs... they will just get two... and two ONLY for the entire innings...
This makes sense as the fresh reviews at the 80 overs mark was an inelegant way to prevent teams who lost their appeals to "umpire's call" decisions under the previous system to not be totally penalized, especially if they were the bowling side and the batting side went BIG in their innings...
However sensibly the teams will no longer get fresh reviews after 80 overs... they will just get two... and two ONLY for the entire innings...
This makes sense as the fresh reviews at the 80 overs mark was an inelegant way to prevent teams who lost their appeals to "umpire's call" decisions under the previous system to not be totally penalized, especially if they were the bowling side and the batting side went BIG in their innings...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Indian Cricket News 24/7
More Indian Cricket headlines
- Player Contracts/Retainers Announced for 2021
- Indian Test Squad for Upcoming England Series Announced
- Indian Test, ODI, and T20i Squads for Australia Tour
- Two New Members of Senior Selection Committee Chosen
- Janini & Vrinda: New Wave of Indian Female Umpires Coming Up
- Wasim Jaffer: The Man Who Loved Batting
- India Start Next Phase of Test Championship as Favorites
- India U19 Reach World Cup Finals For Third Time in a Row
- Four Time World Champions India Announce U19 Squad
Indian Cricket latest threads
- DOMESTIC CRICKET LINKS BLOG
- Player Contracts/Retainers Announced for 2021
- Indian Test Squad for Upcoming England Series Announced
- Indian Test, ODI, and T20i Squads for Australia Tour
- Two New Members of Senior Selection Committee
- Janini & Vrinda: New Wave of Indian Female Umpires Coming Up
- Wasim Jaffer: The Man Who Loved Batting
- India Start Next Phase of Test Championship as Favorites
- India U19 Reach World Cup Finals For Third Time in a Row
- Four Time World Champions India Announce U19 Squad